Where do you rank your political beliefs?

But imposing morality is imposing what is right and wrong, no? If killing someone should be made to be considered a wrong, wouldn`t that mean that the morality that killing is wrong is imposed?



So far I follow you.



How does the rule of not murdering anyone suddenly become a non-imposition? First you talk about a rule, then you talk about a physical object
Wouldn`t a more fitting analogy be calling a rule on bare foots an imposition of morality regarding shoes? And why does the concept become nonsensical because rules based on moral assumptions are refered to as impositions of morality?



The the ruler would be ca 0,1% of the population. Why do you think this is better?




Sort of like Iran then...



So your point was that not all democracies survive, and it is possible that all democracies eventually die out? I neither disagree, nor understand how this applies to the discussion at hand.
 
You are free to disagree with me, but I am presenting the specific political science definitions of the terms conservative and liberal. Sometimes when some people say "conservative" they actually mean "libertarian" and it catches on.

However, I think that you are indeed a conservative. The government's interference in economics and taxation brings the government fiscal growth, and maybe you support a decrease in that on other issues. But on the issue of same-sex marriage, for example, you support a larger government. Although such a change does not give more people or money to the government, it is an extension of size by the fact that it invades more people's lives and tells them how to live. Abortion is another example; if you are opposed to it, you support the idea that government laws should be extended to prohibit people from engaging in abortion. It is an increase in government size.

When you say, "small government", I think you're only referring to the conservative view of "small government". That is, I think you're saying "less taxes, flatter taxes, less spending". That is a fiscal stance, and Republicans do support a smaller fiscal government. Libertarians would agree with you there. But in the moral and social realm, I believe you support a large amount of government interference in people's lives, and that is where Libertarians would disagree; they'd want a small amount of government interference there too. It is very Libertarian, for example, to be very supportive of gay rights and abortion.

So really, you only support a small government on fiscal issues, I think, while liberals support a small government on moral issues, and libertarians support a small government on both sets of issues.
 
A wise monarch is better than an ignorant mob, and a wise mob better than an ignorant monarch. I don't think 0.1% or 53% makes any difference.



My point is that no pure democracy survives very long at all. Our so-called democracies are only prosperous and not dictatorships, yet, to the extent they contain entirely anti-democratic checks, the very same anti-democratic checks you oppose.



Sort of like a Republic. Sort of like an alternative to a dictator or a dictatorship of the majority. For a while.



When someone says they are opposed to the imposition of morality what they mean by that is the restriction of actions involving consenting adults. Certainly in a broad sense you could take the phrase to mean any law, but that's not what is meant by it.
 
That's why we have a written constitution. It is also the reason that real Americans harbor a great animosity against robed potentates who legislate from the bench. So long as the constitution is adhered to we have little or nothing to fear.
 
I reckon I am mostly conservative. People like Michael Moore are the exact reason for the demise of the Democratic party. Him and his ilk hijacked the Democratic party years ago and now are in controll. Moral America is sick of the liberal agenda. I know that I am.
 
According to you, the lack of a democratic process makes giving water to a dying man fundamentally unjust.

Does the lack of a democratic process make enforcing laws against murder unjust, too? Should the Saudi Arabian government stop prohibiting murder of infidels, since this prohibition has not been arrived at by democratic means? At present, their decision appears to me fundamentally unjust.

by the way;


When people say that they believe people can live by whatever morality they like, so long as they allow others to do the same - they usually mean that completely.

If a person wants to kill another person, and that person wants to be killed, this idea implies that that is allowed. Or if they want to kill themselves, that is allowed too.

The only restriction then, is not forced "onto" people, it restricts only their interactions with other people - other people who don't want to interact with them. The only thing forced onto them is a ban on forcing things onto people. :p
 
The first link sucks and is the worst compass ever...half the questions you are "sometimes agree sometimes disagree"...it sucks
 
Dude, what is it with you and liberals? Not a post from you goes by without badmouthing liberals at least once. It's getting real old, real fast (reference: broken record).
 
When I say I believe in small government I believe there should be agencies that are cut or even done away with........I do believe we are way over taxed and the President's tax cuts should be made permanent........I beleive there are a lot of things that are done on the federal level can be done at the state level...........I am a strong believer ov the military and believe that it was gutted by the Clinton administration.. I believe the public school system is failed and vouchers should be and option.........

I don't how you say keeping marriage defined as it is presently promotes bigger government........

I guess the point I am trying to make is I believe a Libertarian and a Conservative have a lot of common beliefs..........
 
The job of the "activist" judges is to make sure that the legislature does not pass unconstitutional laws. The purpose of the legislature, IMO, is to determine exactly how to enforce the Constitution. No social engineering BS.
 
Politics are about values. Wisdom seldom has anything to do with it.




Pure speculation. And your examples where not pure-democracies going under, so I don`t really see the point. And the Weimar republic failed, at least partially due to the fact that Hitler and his allies were quite skilled at manipulating and exploiting the checks you advocate...



Hmmm.. I`ve never heard that definition of republic before.



I don`t see what that has to do with morality though... But, ok. If that is how poeple use the phrase, I won`t bitch about it ;)
 
Back
Top